The
facts of this case are complex and require an understanding of computing that I Iack, but what it seems to come down to is that Myriad Group (Myriad) had
some licenses to use Java trademarks and the Java programming language
developed by Oracle America (Oracle). The parties dispute the terms of
the licenses and as a result Oracle alleges that Myriad had been using the
trademarks and the programming language without paying for them, thus
infringing upon Oracle's intellectual property rights. Oracle sued in
the Northern District of California alleging breach of contract and violation
of intellectual property rights, while Myriad sued Oracle in Delaware alleging breach
of contract.

Myriad
moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California pursuant to
an arbitration clause that provided for arbitration of any claim relating to
intellectual property rights "in accordance with the rules of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (the 'Rules') in effect at the time of the arbitration as modified herein
. . . " The District Court granted Myriad's motion with respect to
Oracle's breach of contract claim only, finding that the UNCITRAL Rules do not provide
the arbitrator with exclusive jurisdiction to determine the scope of its own
jurisdiction.

The Ninth
Circuit began by noting that, while public policy favors arbitration
agreements, there is a presumption that courts should decide which issues are
arbitrable. Nonetheless, a court should grant a motion to compel
arbitration to decide issues of arbitrability if the parties’ arbitration
provision “constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties
intended to arbitrate arbitrability.”
While the Ninth Circuit had never decided whether UNCITRAL’s Rules
constitute such evidence, both the Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit had
concluded that the 1976 version of the UNCITRAL Rules constitutes clear and
unmistakable evidence that the parties to an agreement governed by the Rules intended to arbitrate
questions of arbitrability. Although the
2010 version of UNCITRAL’s Rules might have been at issue in this case, the
Ninth Circuit ruled the differences betwee the 1976 and 2010 versions do not affect the outcome on this issue.

The Court
remanded the case to the District Court for proceedings consistent with its
opinon.